What gets lost in the shuffle here, is that the FBI, perhaps
the Justice Department, and who knows what other government
agencies were conspiring to not only shut down the expression
of Conservative opinions on social media, but you had the
full MSM blocking reporting of anything that would be
supportive of Conservative views and policy, and denigrating
Conservatives with lies and false flags all the while.
Russian collusion was the most prominent example. Once
that was proven to be a fraud, no one was taken down for
creating and pushing the false narrative.
This was absolutely a denial of the First Amendment against
Republicans and Conservatism. Granted, the RNC was
probably on board as far as they were concerned.
One site like FR denying Leftists a voice is one thing.
Jim conspiring with the FBI and other government agencies
in addition to the entire MSM and other major social
media sites would be wrong, unless the Left were exhibiting
criminal behavior.
I would submit they are a subversive Marxist org trying
to subvert and take over the United States. They are
at their core a criminal enterprise.
The right simply wants the Constitution to be adhered to,
the bedrock from the nation’s inception.
If government agencies were interfering and causing people to be banned for expressing political views or presenting facts the political party in power did not like, that’s a whole different kettle of fish. You were arguing this:
********
“Try telling a Black person they can’t shop in your store.
Try telling a homosexual you won’t bake them a cake for a
wedding.
Now, explain to me why those two things not run by the
government are impossible to do.
The first amendment is a civil right every bit as much
as a Black person having access.
Anyone participating on a comments web sight, has a
right to participate.
To not allow it, is denying their first amendment rights.
The majority has civil rights too.
Thanks.
*******
It’s true a private business cannot bar or ban people because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. But “comments web sites” can and do put limits on speech. They are free to ban whomever they please for whatever reason. Democrats cannot spout off on FR — any who try get the zot. A gardening forum can ban people for discussing astronomy and an astronomy forum can ban people for posting about football. And so on.
But if the government gets in on the act and uses its powers of coercion to curtail citizens from expressing their political views or presenting facts ... that’s a different story, so long as the the citizen is speaking within the law.*
I suspect the coercion thing is key. If a Trump staffer called JimRob and told him Trump did not like the stuff CatHerd and DoughtyOne were posting here, and he looked at our posts and did not like them either and banned us, that’s one thing. If a member of Trump’s staff called him while Trump was still president and said the same and also hinted that the IRS would be sicced on JimRob if he did not ban us, that’s something else entirely.
*Free speech does have limits. We have laws against libel, laws against incitement to violence, laws against terroristic threats, and laws against incitement to immanent harm (eg shouting fire in a crowded theater).